What Kind of Offense Are We Really Trying to Run?

[Elf]

So me needing to thank Frank for our slide into mediocrity isn't blaming him? But just so I'm clear. Osborne does know what offense he ran and you have no clue what you are talking about? Not agreeing that point anymore so I'm assuming you agree.

Now please just stop. You are so far behind you think you are first.

Just because I stopped arguing a point does not mean I agree with you. How do you make these leaps of logic? Maybe it's just not worth arguing?

You can thank Frank for starting the slide, you can also thank Bill and Bo for not reversing it. And, sometime in the future we may or may not be able to thank Riley for not reversing it as well.

 

[Stumpy1]

Elf...Just ignore BRV, he is a cm sock.

 

[84HuskerLaw]

You stated in a reply to me that we could blame the last 15 years on Frank. Secondly Elf you stated that we went away from a option attack to a power running attack when we went on our dominate run in the 90's. If you want me to pull up both statements I'd be more than happy too.

Both Tommie F and Scott F were excellent 'option' QBs and we ran the option a bunch in the mid to late 90s. I think it is fair to say that the option was a bread and butter of the offense. Those FB traps and QB keepers to the outside were mostly in 'option' action plays. In fact, I believe it was during this time that the phrase "Osbone" was coined to describe some of the option formations and plays that Osborne pretty much originated or included in his running offensive approach. We also had basic I formation power stuff and drop back and play action and shot gun passing and ran lots of QB draws out of the shot gun as well. We continued running 'option' in Frank's years as well. However, I never felt Eric C pitched the ball nearly enough. In fact, my opinion was that our option pitch out plays to the I backs at the corners didn't work as well as Crouch ran too fast and got ahead of Buckhalter/Alexander, etc. The stagger was not as it needed to be. Just my feeling at the time. I still strongly believe that the Wishbone as perfected by Switzer teams at OU and the Osbone if you want to call it that of the last 6 years under TO were the most difficult to defend offenses every designed in the college game of the modern era. Still nothing to this day that is better. Oh! The good old days! I long for their return. We ought to implement them. Tommy Armstrong could be an excellent Osbone QB in my opinion - a natural almost.

 

[BRV920]

Thanks Stumpy!

 

[Elf]

How old are you Elf? I watched the games from the 70's and 80's and to say we were a primarily option team is beyond uninformed. It's laughable! And to say that Frank let the program slide from the most dominant run in college football history. Well duh! Did you think we were just going to win 20 titles in a row? You could say the same about Osborne taking over for Devaney. Did he let the program slide for 20 years?

I'm probably older than you are, I've been a fan for over 50 years. In the 70's we ran a pro-style offense. I think it was '81 when Osborne went to the option offense.

Osborne never had a 7-7 season.

Osborne never had crippling scholarship limits either and played only 10 games a season with 7 conference games.

It was a different time, a different era, and thus really can't apply to winning in today's college football. Too much has changed in the past 20 years to really compare it at all.

Osborne never had crippling scholarship limits either. There is this false narrative that Osborne didn't have to deal with scholarship limits. In 73 the NCAA set the initial scholarship limits at 105, in '78 that number was reduced to 95 and in '92 it was reduced again to its current limit of 85. And I really don't think even 85 is a crippling limit, I mean, its not like it has crippled anyone else.

Fine, you object to the word crippling. Remove it from the equation.

Rephrased: Osborne never had the scholarship limits that we have today.

Yes he did. He had the same limits we have today from 92 -97. And from 78-91 his limit was only 10 higher than it is today. And get this, Osborne's teams never played less than 12 games a year.

*Edit* I'm not sure how the information from this chart is going to paste over....this could be ugly!

Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/playoffs Coaches# AP°

Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big Eight Conference) (1973–1995)ci

1973 Nebraska 9–2–1 4–2–1 T–2nd W Cotton 11T 7

1974 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 T–2nd W Sugar 9 8

1975 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 T–1st L Fiesta 9 9

1976 Nebraska 9–3–1 4–3 T–4th W Bluebonnet 7 9

1977 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 T–2nd W Liberty 10 12

1978 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 T–1st L Orange 8 8

1979 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Cotton 7 9

1980 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd W Sun 7 7

1981 Nebraska 9–3 7–0 1st L Orange 9 11

1982 Nebraska 12–1 7–0 1st W Orange 3 3

1983 Nebraska 12–1 7–0 1st L Orange 2 2

1984 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 T–1st W Sugar 3 4

1985 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 10 11

1986 Nebraska 10–2 5–2 3rd W Sugar 4 5

1987 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 6 6

1988 Nebraska 11–2 7–0 1st L Orange 10 10

1989 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 12 11

1990 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 3rd L Florida Citrus 17T 24

1991 Nebraska 9–2–1 6–0–1 T–1st L Orange 16 15

1992 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 1st L Orange† 14 14

1993 Nebraska 11–1 7–0 1st L Orange† 3 3

1994 Nebraska 13–0 7–0 1st W Orange† 1 1

1995 Nebraska 12–0 7–0 1st W Fiesta† 1 1

Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big 12 Conference) (1996–1997)

1996 Nebraska 11–2 8–0 1st (North) W Orange† 6 6

1997 Nebraska 13–0 8–0 1st (North) W Orange† 1 2

Nebraska: 255–49–3 160–23–2

Total: 255–49–3

The bottom line is, for most of his coaching career, TO didn't have the scholarship limits that are present in today's football. End of story.

https://sites.google.com/site/nebraskafootballhistory/recruiting

Total Scholarships on Team Scholarships allowed by Conference per year (prior to 1973)

Big 10 - 30

Prior to 1973 No limit by NCAA. Limit is by individual conference. SEC - 40

1973-74 - 105 (approved at 1973 NCAA Convention) Big 8 - 45

1978-79 - 95 Southwest - 50

1992-93 - 92* Still looking for other conferences, many teams were

1993-94 - 88* independent prior to 1973, that are now in various conferences

1994-95 - 85*

* = Three-year phase-in of legislation approved at the 1991 NCAA Convention.

You were wrong, you just can't admit it. So keep moving the goal posts.

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

So, somebody explain to me how the 1970s and the start of scholarship limits will help us figure out what type of offense Mike Riley wants to run in the future.

 

[Elf]

How old are you Elf? I watched the games from the 70's and 80's and to say we were a primarily option team is beyond uninformed. It's laughable! And to say that Frank let the program slide from the most dominant run in college football history. Well duh! Did you think we were just going to win 20 titles in a row? You could say the same about Osborne taking over for Devaney. Did he let the program slide for 20 years?

I'm probably older than you are, I've been a fan for over 50 years. In the 70's we ran a pro-style offense. I think it was '81 when Osborne went to the option offense.

Osborne never had a 7-7 season.

Osborne never had crippling scholarship limits either and played only 10 games a season with 7 conference games.

It was a different time, a different era, and thus really can't apply to winning in today's college football. Too much has changed in the past 20 years to really compare it at all.

Osborne never had crippling scholarship limits either. There is this false narrative that Osborne didn't have to deal with scholarship limits. In 73 the NCAA set the initial scholarship limits at 105, in '78 that number was reduced to 95 and in '92 it was reduced again to its current limit of 85. And I really don't think even 85 is a crippling limit, I mean, its not like it has crippled anyone else.

Fine, you object to the word crippling. Remove it from the equation.

Rephrased: Osborne never had the scholarship limits that we have today.

Yes he did. He had the same limits we have today from 92 -97. And from 78-91 his limit was only 10 higher than it is today. And get this, Osborne's teams never played less than 12 games a year.

*Edit* I'm not sure how the information from this chart is going to paste over....this could be ugly!

Year Team Overall Conference Standing Bowl/playoffs Coaches# AP°

Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big Eight Conference) (1973–1995)ci

1973 Nebraska 9–2–1 4–2–1 T–2nd W Cotton 11T 7

1974 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 T–2nd W Sugar 9 8

1975 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 T–1st L Fiesta 9 9

1976 Nebraska 9–3–1 4–3 T–4th W Bluebonnet 7 9

1977 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 T–2nd W Liberty 10 12

1978 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 T–1st L Orange 8 8

1979 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Cotton 7 9

1980 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd W Sun 7 7

1981 Nebraska 9–3 7–0 1st L Orange 9 11

1982 Nebraska 12–1 7–0 1st W Orange 3 3

1983 Nebraska 12–1 7–0 1st L Orange 2 2

1984 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 T–1st W Sugar 3 4

1985 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 10 11

1986 Nebraska 10–2 5–2 3rd W Sugar 4 5

1987 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 6 6

1988 Nebraska 11–2 7–0 1st L Orange 10 10

1989 Nebraska 10–2 6–1 2nd L Fiesta 12 11

1990 Nebraska 9–3 5–2 3rd L Florida Citrus 17T 24

1991 Nebraska 9–2–1 6–0–1 T–1st L Orange 16 15

1992 Nebraska 9–3 6–1 1st L Orange† 14 14

1993 Nebraska 11–1 7–0 1st L Orange† 3 3

1994 Nebraska 13–0 7–0 1st W Orange† 1 1

1995 Nebraska 12–0 7–0 1st W Fiesta† 1 1

Nebraska Cornhuskers (Big 12 Conference) (1996–1997)

1996 Nebraska 11–2 8–0 1st (North) W Orange† 6 6

1997 Nebraska 13–0 8–0 1st (North) W Orange† 1 2

Nebraska: 255–49–3 160–23–2

Total: 255–49–3

The bottom line is, for most of his coaching career, TO didn't have the scholarship limits that are present in today's football. End of story.

https://sites.google.com/site/nebraskafootballhistory/recruiting

Total Scholarships on Team Scholarships allowed by Conference per year (prior to 1973)

Big 10 - 30

Prior to 1973 No limit by NCAA. Limit is by individual conference. SEC - 40

1973-74 - 105 (approved at 1973 NCAA Convention) Big 8 - 45

1978-79 - 95 Southwest - 50

1992-93 - 92* Still looking for other conferences, many teams were

1993-94 - 88* independent prior to 1973, that are now in various conferences

1994-95 - 85*

* = Three-year phase-in of legislation approved at the 1991 NCAA Convention.

You were wrong, you just can't admit it. So keep moving the goal posts.

I posted my source and it's easily verifiable. No goal posts moving. Majority of Toms career he didn't have the limits they have today. That's a true statement.

Thus, we cannot compare then to now.

You originally said he didn't have scholarship limits and every time I proved you wrong you changed what you were saying. That's called moving the goal posts.

 

[ADS]

Stanfords offense please.

 

[Undone]

Stanfords offense please.

Agreed. With the occasional designed bootleg keep and non-zone read draws for Tommy.

Please.

 

[RedDenver]

Stanfords offense please.

Agreed. With the occasional designed bootleg keep and non-zone read draws for Tommy.

Please.

Can Stanford's offense be effective without a stud passing QB? Any offense looks good with Luck or Hogan directing it. I'd like to see how it performs with an average QB.

 

[Landlord]

Stanfords offense please.

Agreed. With the occasional designed bootleg keep and non-zone read draws for Tommy.

Please.

Can Stanford's offense be effective without a stud passing QB? Any offense looks good with Luck or Hogan directing it. I'd like to see how it performs with an average QB.

A lot of people would argue that Stanford's offense made Hogan into a stud when he'd otherwise be average.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Stanford's offense is built around recruiting huge and smart offensive linemen, then passing and running at whatever ratio works against the defensive alignment.

That offensive line has been making a lot of guys look good.

There's a lot of leftover West Coast Offense at Stanford, which doesn't mean pass-first as some tend to think, but uses a variety of low-risk, high efficiency plays that wear a defense down. Quarterbacks definitely don't need a strong arm, but they need to be savvy decision makers.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Standfords. Bama. Mich St. sure. And that's pretty much what were headed to.

Standord averaged like 27 pass att a game last year i believe.

edit

check that. like 22-23

 

[Undone]

There's a lot of leftover West Coast Offense at Stanford, which doesn't mean pass-first as some tend to think, but uses a variety of low-risk, high efficiency plays that wear a defense down. Quarterbacks definitely don't need a strong arm, but they need to be savvy decision makers.

Wouldn't be too crazy to say that this quote might pretty accurately describe what Riley has seemed to express as his own desired style of offensive play.

Passing to the I-Backs, etc., etc.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

People also forget that Andrew Luck was a bit of a badass in his Stanford days, willing to take off in open field, put his shoulder into a defender and truck him.

I think he backed off a bit when he realized how many millions of dollars his shoulder was worth.